campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia talk:Three-revert rule/Approval Vote
There clearly needs to be some sort of policy to prevent edit-warring, but I don't think that most people will understand what this policy says. I think we can write a policy that will be much clearer and will lead to fewer disputes. What does this mean: "If the individual was not involved in the vote and can claim ignorance of it, however, they should be informed of the vote along with the first reversion, but a 3-day ban will still be applied if the changes have to be reverted 3 times, ignoring the consensus"? :It means that if you're on the losing side of the vote and you revert the results, you don't get 3 more reversions before you get a 3-day ban (this is, of course, not retroactive). If, however, you weren't around when the vote took place, you get a warning first. --whosawhatsis? 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks for clarifying that. What would happen if a user were to appeal their ban on the grounds that the policy is incomprehensible? It seems to me that they would have a case. Lou franklin 01:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC) How can a block be "permanent" if "staff of Wikia have the power and authority to restore any account blocked via use of this rule"? And what is the process that the blocked user would use to get a Wikia staff member to unblock them? I think the policy is unclear, and I think it is also too strict. There is a lot of room for admin interpretation here (exactly what constitutes "vandalism"?). Permanently banning users after only two violations seems awfully drastic to me. You may find that good users get tagged with a couple of offenses after participating here for a year or two. You may end up booting some of your best contributors. Lou franklin 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC) :I agree with you about the danger, but we need something in place to get things going. Policies are always up for debate, and up for amendment if there is sufficient support for the change. We can't make it too easy, but we will make changes possible. Chadlupkes 04:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC) :Actually, the way its worded, it only applies to violations of the same consensus ruling. If anything, this is not strict enough, and there needs to be a way to deal with people who violate multiple rulings. As for "booting some of your best contributors", anyone who willfully and repeatedly violates the rules is no big loss. --whosawhatsis? 05:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC) ::It is a mistake to adopt a flawed policy in order to "get things going". We are voting about whether this "will become official policy for Campaigns Wikia". We don't really know how hard it will be to correct a policy after it is adopted. Chad says "we can't make it too easy, but we will make changes possible". It would be better to get the policy right before adopting it. Lou franklin 11:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC) :::If that attitude had been used in 1789, we would still be arguing about how to draft the constitution, and the Amendments would probably still be in committee. Chadlupkes 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC) ::::The constitution is unambiguous. This policy is not. Lou franklin 01:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :::If you thought it was so flawed, why didn't you voice your concerns before it came up for a vote? I know a couple of things didn't get in until the last minute, but they were discussed on the talk page ahead of time. --whosawhatsis? 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Does that make it less flawed in some way? Lou franklin 01:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :::::The US Constitution is sorta ambiguous. With phrases like "necessary and proper" and "Commander in Chief" versus Congress' ability to "declare war," there is enough to make the US Constitution a point of contention. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)